Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 10-10-2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: October 10, 2006 Convened: 9:00 a.m. Adjourned: 12:32 p.m. Commissioners Present: Doug Coward, Chairman, Chris Craft, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson, Joseph Smith Others Present: Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Don West, Public Works Director, Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, Dennis Wetzel, IT Director, Ed Fry, Clerk of Courts, Susan Kilmer, Library Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk 1.MINUTES It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve the minutes of the meeting held October 3, 2006, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2.PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A.The Board was presented the Florida American Planning Award of Excellence for the TVC. B.Resolution No. 06-318 Proclaiming October 10, 2006 as “Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Day” in St. Lucie County, Florida. I was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve Resolution No. 06- 318, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. C.The Veterans Services Director presented the Government Challenge Trophies for the Big Brothers Big Sisters Bowl for Kids Sake. 3.GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 4.CONSENT AGENDA Com. Hutchinson requested item C-2-C be pulled for separate vote and advised those present she would be abstaining from voting or any discussion on this item due to a conflict of interest. C2-C Guettler Property Mine Surety Bond- Consider staff recommendation to accept the Surety Bond. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously with Com. Hutchinson abstaining. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve the balance of the Consent Agenda, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1.WARRANT LIST The Board approved Warrant List No. 53 and No. 1. 2.COUNTY ATTORNEY A.Permission to advertise- Public Hearing- The Board approved advertising the petition to abandon a 12 foot utility easement in 1 Lexington Square to be held December 5, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. B.Permission to Advertise- Public Hearing- The Board approved advertising the exchange of a portion of Gordy Road for property associated with the pending DRI application of Provences public hearing for December 5, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. C.Previously heard. D.Chuck’s Seafood – First Amendment to April 21, 1998 Restatement of Lease Agreement- The Board approved the amendment and authorized the Chairman to sign the amendment. E.Subdivision Improvement Agreement- Avalon on the Beach- The Board approved the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and authorized the Chairman to sign. 3.PARKS AND RECREATION A.Request for approval to serve alcohol at Indrio School House Facility/Park- The Board approved Teamsters Local # 769 ‘s request to serve alcohol at Indrio School House Facility during its picnic on December 2, 2006. B.Fairwinds Golf Course Proposed Rate Increase- The Board approved an increase of $1 to each 18 hole Green Fee with Cart effective December 26, 2006. C.South County Regional Stadium Sponsorship cancellations- The Board approved to void South County Regional Sponsorship agreements C00-05-315, C00-10-071, C00-12-187 and C00-12-188. 4.COMMUNITY SERVICES Contract with INTACT- The Board approved the contract with INTACT to receive grant funds to provide coordination and case management services and to authorize the Chairman or designated representative to sing all necessary documents; to approve the purchase of a computer and office furniture for staff hired into these positions and to hire staff to fill the approved positions. 5.PUBLIC SAFETY A.Domestic Security Federally Funded Sub Grant Agreement- The Board approved accepting the State of Florida Domestic Security Federally Funded Sub-grant Agreement No.07-DS-3W-10-66-01 in the amount of $46,633.00. B.Domestic Security Federally Funded Sub Grant Agreement- The Board approved accepting the State of Florida Domestic Security Federally Funded Sub-grant Agreement No. 07DS-5N-10-66-01 in the amount of $41,944.00. 6.PUBLIC WORKS A.Engineering Division- Contract extension- The Board approved the First Amendment to Work Authorization No. 25 with Dunkleberger Testing & Engineering and authorized the Chairman to sign. B.Engineering Division- The Board approved Work Authorization Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the Contract for Professional Engineering Services 2 related to construction management with Stanley Consultants, Inc., for overseeing the construction of the Kings Highway Canal Culvert replacements in the amount $38,612.43 for Work Authorization No.1, $26,520.37 for Work Authorization No. 2 and $36,641.84 for Work Authorization No. 3. C. Engineering Division- to accept project- The Board approved accepting the project, release the retainage in the amount of $ 40,132.66 and make final payment in the amount of $52,151.70 to Ranger Construction for the construction of Weatherbee Road & U.S. 1 intersection improvements. D. Engineering Division- The Board approved Work Authorization No. 2 with Creech Engineers in the amount of $183,400 for Paradise Park Subdivision Stormwater Improvements Phase III and authorized the Chairman to sign. 7.PURCHASING A.Award of RFP No. 06-090- Actuary Services for other Post- employment benefits- The Board approved to negotiate with the top three ranked firms: 1) Buck Consultants LLC, 2) Milliman, Inc., and 3) RSM McGladrey, and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. B.Reject Bid for IFB No. 05-050 White City Pedestrian Bridge- The Board approved rejecting the sole submittal received for Bid 05-050 because it exceeded the project budget. C.Award of Bid No.06-112- Enhanced Swale Maintenance- The Board approved awarding Bid No. 06-112 to the low bidder, Tarheel Specialities, Inc., for the pricing listed on the attached tabulation form, and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. D. Award of RFP No. 06-024- Disaster Debris Monitoring Management and Consulting Services- The Board approved awarding RFP No. 06- 024 to Solid Resources as the primary contractor, with Beck Disaster Recovery and Patton Harris Rust & Associates as additional contractors, and authorized the Chairman to sign the necessary contracts as prepared by the County Attorney. E. Permission to advertise for Bids- The Board approved advertising An invitation for bids for Exotic Tree Eradication. 8.GROWTH MANAGEMENT Grant Requests- The Board approved the proposed grants for the TCSC and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreements as prepared by the County Attorney ‘s office. The grant dollars will be used for operational and bid expenses to draw sporting events to the County. 9.MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Budget Resolution No. 06-319- The Board approved accepting the donation from SFWMD for the well monitoring network grant for Soil and Water. The grant is in the amount of $11,250. 3 10.GRANTS The Board authorized submittal of a grant application the County is preparing as a “prospective purchaser “ of a portion of the City of Ft. Pierce Public Works Compound. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Treasure Coast Brownfields Program, Sustainable Reuse funds would be used for brownfield assessment of 15 acre portion of the Compound. 11.INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE Bid Waiver Sole Source Providers Hydropro and Jacobs and Acceptance of Bid from Walsh Environmental Services- The Board approved waiving the bid process, accepting Hydropro ($45,000) and Jacobs ($39,900) as sole source providers for the equipment purchase and accepted Walsh Environmental Services bid in the amount of $308,000 total project cost $393,300 and approved the contract as drafted by the County Attorney and authorized the Chairman to sign. 12.ADMINISTRATION A.Commissioner/County Administrator Travel- The Board approved in or out of state travel for the County Administrator and any member of the Board during the FY06-07 fiscal year. B.Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee- The Board ratified the Commissioners appointees retro to January 1, 2006. 13.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Board approved the purchase of installation and maintenance agreement with Bellsouth for Metro-E service to the St. Lucie County Airport 14.ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES The Board approved the First Amendment to Agreement C06-05-362 with Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez and Rinehart for the preparation of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Greenways and Trails Master Plan and authorized the Chair to sign the Agreement as prepared by the County Attorney’s office. REGULAR AGENDA (0:22:12) 5.No Public Hearings scheduled. 6.STRATEGY AND SPECIAL PROJECT/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Review and consideration of staff options pertaining to the implementation of a Countywide Transferable Development Rights program- Staff was seeking direction. Mr. Michael Brillhart, Special Projects and Strategy Director addressed the Board on this item. He advised the Board of the 3 options for their consideration as stated in Attachment A. The attachment reads as follows: Transfer of Development Rights Program Options for Developing a Planning Study and Adoption Ordinance Necessary for implementing a Countywide TDR Program. 4 Option 1- Prepare an RFP for professional consulting services. The services will include: Planning services- land use inventory, identify criteria for land preservation/conservation requirements, designate appropriate sending areas, establish transferable credit values and multipliers. Legal services- prepare adoption Ordinance and related legal documents pertaining to administration, conservation easements and deed restrictions. Option 2- Modify the ‘draft” proposed professional services contract with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to include the development of a Countywide TDR program as part of their professional services. The TCRPC could serve as the project manager and use Tom Daniels (TDR planning) and Nancy Stroud (legal) as the consultants for this effort. The TCRPC provided the professional services pertaining to the implementation of the North County Special Area Plan (SAP) TDR program as adopted through Ordinance No. 06-018. Option 3- Expand the existing impact fee contract with Dr. Nicholas to incorporate a TDR planning analysis for this project. Dr. Nicholas consulted for Collier County on their 2003 adopted TDR program. He has experience in other TDR programs within Florida. Under this option, the County Attorney’s office could use an attorney under their professional services contract to prepare County-wide TDR Ordinance and relevant legal documents. Com. Craft suggested before going forward and expending funds for a study for the TDR program, he believes it’s important the county have some commitment from the cities as well as the county to no longer give away up-zoning. If this cannot be done and are not willing to take this step, and passing an ordinance that prohibits giving away density the point of going to the TDR program is mute. Com. Smith asked if this would mean the county should create a task force so that everyone can come to the table. Com. Craft stated he felt everyone should come to the table. Com. Coward stated the idea is positive in a perfect world, but the reality is otherwise. Prior to the City of Port St. Lucie annexing a large area, he had a conversation with the Mayor and wanted to do what Com. Craft suggested and this never happened. He would hate for the county not to address this need without the cities cooperation, he would love to have the cities work in cooperation but if they do not, he does not believe they should put the brakes on looking at this program. He is still interested in having continued dialogue with the cities and see if they are interested but does not wish this to be an all ending scenario. Com. Hutchinson stated she tended to agree with Com. Coward, but would like to open the door and is optimistic that they may want to participate. She concurs it should not be placed in the back burner if they do not. She would like to move forward with the possibility of an RFP to give them different options to review. Com. Craft stated he believes before they go forward and ask for an RFP they need to find out from each city if they are willing to participate and if they are, what are they looking to achieve. These suggestions would need to be included in the RFP. Staff is tentatively recommending option 1. Com. Coward stated he is leaning more towards option 2 which is to work with the Regional Planning Council since they have the expertise. 5 Mr. Busha, Regional Planning Council Executive Director, advised the Board if the Council works for the County as a technical assistance agency through an interlocal agreement, if this goes out into the street as an RFP then the Regional Planning Council is out. He stated they would still be happy to assist in any case. He suggested the County try very hard to get the cities involved. Mr. Martin addressed the Board and stated in some way the TDR program does exist in a test area and there is an ordinance in existence. He believes the county should continue to move forward and everyone can jump on board. Com. Coward asked the question is do we stop the process and go back and talk to the cities again or do we continue to move forward and invite the cities to join us. Ms. Susie Caron, Indrio Road resident and Vice Chair of the TDR Committee addressed the Board and thanked everyone for supporting this and she believes it should move forward and felt what they have already done in north county is put infrastructure in place and believes once the cities hear what is happening they will call and want to join the county. Unidentified gentleman from the Visions of Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board in favor of the city of Ft. Pierce joining in on the TDR program. Mr. Dave Goreman property addressed the Board in favor of the cities being involved in order to take advantage of the receiving area and density. He would like to have the option of transferring his development rights. Com. Coward stated he would every attempt to have the cities join in however in the event that they cannot get them to aggressively join and embrace the county in this effort, he still believes they need to proceed. Com. Lewis stated she concurred with the fact if they cannot get the cities to agree, they need to move forward. She suggested having the opportunity to present this to the cities and maybe place a period of 30 days or 3 weeks something they can agree on and would like to them look at the bare bones before proceeding with a consultant and felt this was an important factor. She does not wish to make anyone feel that something that is already constructed is being shoved down their throats. Com. Coward stated there seems to be a consensus that her suggestion would be the best approach at this point. He also asked Com. Craft to play the leadership role and setup meetings with the individual Commissioners and have county staff meet with them and see if over the next 30 days they can get the cities to formally join the county in this effort. Com. Craft stated he would like to approach each Board at one of their meetings and speak before them in a public setting. Com. Lewis asked if Com. Craft would be opposed to carrying a letter from the Board as the official vehicle in the matter. Com. Smith stated he would like to see this fast tracked and be a two week issue rather than a 30 day and he would assist in making phone calls. Com. Craft concurred. Com. Coward thanked Com. Craft and Com. Smith for their willingness to assist in moving this forward and he looked forward to discussing this again within the next two weeks. 7.COUNTY ATTORNEY (1:02:27) Resolution No. 06-272- Sustainable Building Practices- Consider staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 06-272 and authorized the Chairman to sign the resolution. 6 Com. Coward stated he felt the Resolution was a little broad and requested further information in terms of implementation. The Environmental Resources Director addressed Com. Coward’s question. She stated staff would like to recommend is rather than setting up more than one committee, they set up rather large committee and from that committee set up sub-committees at this point they have 13. If this Resolution is approved today, they would bring back to the Board a resolution setting up the committee in a few weeks for consideration and move forward in getting the committee going. It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve Resolution No. 06- 272, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 8.ADMINISTRATION (1:10:22) Public Schools Advisory Committee- Consider staff recommendation to appoint a citizen member and County staff member to serve on the Public Schools Advisory Committee. Com. Smith volunteered to be the citizen advisor. Also the staff member appointed is David Kelly, Planning Manager for St. Lucie County. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Hutchinson, to appoint Com. Smith and David Kelly, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 9.PURCHASING A.Notice of Appeal- Bid Protests- SLC Bid No. 06-084 (Runway 9L- 27R and Parallel Taxiway System: Earthwork)- Consider staff recommendation to uphold the Purchasing Director’s recommendation to rule Sitewerks, Inc. non-responsive. The Airport Director addressed the Board on this item. The County Attorney advised the Board they had received the memorandum from the Interim Purchasing Director and proceeded to review the memorandum. The County Attorney advised the Board of this being a 95% federally funded program and the fact there are certain regulations the county is required to comply with and it does establish goals and it does require a good faith effort be established to meet those goals. The County Attorney stated they have determined and also had contact with the Department of Civil Rights, with Federal Aviation Administration that Sitewerks did not meet those requirements. Sitewerks did not meet the DBE requirements set forth in the contract documents required by the FDOT, Sitewerks committed to provide 0% DBE utilization on the project and did not provide documentation demonstrating a good faith effort to meet the 14.1% goal, therefore Sitewerks bid was deemed non-responsive. Dickerson Florida did submit a bid that although did not meet the DBE goal, however, they did demonstrate goof faith effort. The County Attorney stated awarding the bid to Sitewerks is not an option based on the FAA position on the fact at least a good faith effort by Sitewerks was not made. He advised the Board if they felt a good effort was not made or there is any other irregularity, the Board reject the bids and re-advertise. It is his understanding that if the Board decides to re-advertise, the county will incur the cost on any re-bid over the Dickerson number and there is also a concern with the timing . The County received these funds because they were ready to move forward. 7 Ms. Cynthia Angelos, Attorney for Sitewerks addressed the Board. Ms. Angelos stated she raised certain issues with staff however, the issue that was not discussed was what was contained in their letters to the County Attorney’s office dated rdth September 23 and September 25. The language with regard to the RFP as it relates to the requirement of DBA was challenged. Part V of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, the language as it relates to the DBE qualification obligation was read into the record. “ The contractor agrees to ensure that DBE firms shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts for subcontractor services”. She also referenced another part of the bid, Part III where in it is referred to as “An Equal Employment Opportunity Requirement”. The reference to subcontractors as well in subparagraph II, “ whenever the contractor subcontracts a portion of the work involving the construction trade, shall physically include in each subcontract provisions and specifications notice which contains the applicable goals to minority and female participation”. Ms. Angles stated, “the language in Part V and in Part III created an ambiguity as it relates to whether or not DBE subcontractors are a requirement period, or whether the DBE requirement only apply only when subcontractors are used. This ambiguity evidently was present when the county made it’s decision back in June to award a bid to Sitewerks out at the Airport which contained the same DBE requirement language and Sitewerks again did not list any DBE subcontractors relying on the language because they were not using subcontractors”. Ms. Angleos alluded to the statement made by Mr. Brame in the memo from Heather Sperazza Lueke to the Purchasing Director wherein he stated that, in order to be considered for this project, Sitewerks, Inc., must either use or attempt to use DBE certified subcontractors. She stated she wished this language had been used in the RFP and had this been done they would not be here today. This is the same language used in the 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 2653 on which the FAA is relying. Ms. Angelos stated, specific, the County may only award a bid to an offer, or a bidder who makes a good faith effort to utilize DBA subcontractors. She stated it was their position that the language in the RFP was ambiguous, not clear and hence that is the reason her client did not make a good faith effort for the DBE subcontractor. With regard to Dickerson’s efforts, the first subcontractor that was listed by Dickerson, is All For You Landscape and Maintenance Inc., this particular sub is not certified. She advised the Board, it is stated that if a sub is currently certified as a DBE do not count the firm’s participation toward any DBE goals and stated this particular subcontractor should not be considered. Ms. Angelos alluded to specific rules ands regulations regarding payment/ payroll of the trucking company listed, O.C. Unlimited. The bid docks and federal law require they provide pay stubs if this is the case and she is not sure if this is Mr. O’Neal’s position and requested the ability to cross-examine anyone who is testifying after being sworn in. Ms. Angelos stated, the courts have said it would be the government’s responsibility to show that there is a compelling interest justifying a plan be required. The plan must narrowly be tailored to remedy a fact of prior discrimination. She stated their plan is resulting in Dickerson listing one sub not certified and cannot be considered and another where clearly the sum attributed to them is not even part of their bid. Thereby, disqualifying Sitewerks who has 70-75% part of their company as minority. Ms. Angelos alluded to the response and to the time schedule of work to be completed not provided by Dickerson. Mr. Gene O’Neal, Attorney for Dickerson Florida Inc., addressed the Board. Mr. O’Neal stated the bid was not ambiguous, you either met the goal or you showed a good faith effort. He stated Dickerson contacted every DBE subcontractor listed in the website. 8 Mr. O’Neal stated Sitewerks felt they did not need to comply with the DBE rules because they were not going to subcontract they were doing all the work themselves. He advised the Board on page 30 of the DBE requirements that doing it all yourself is no excuse, it is no effort to comply with the DBE requirements. The Clerk/Secretary to the Board swore in those persons testifying. Mr. Bernie Barelli, testifying on behalf of Dickerson was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. O’Neal asked Mr. Barelli to inform the Board of the efforts made by Dickerson, Florida regarding the DBE requirements. Mr. Barelli stated this project is mainly preparation of the area for future use, there are limited opportunities for different work sites. There is earthworks and clearing, etc., he advised the Board of the various contractors they contacted. Ms. Angelos requested the County Attorney advise the Board for the record that it would be improper for the Board to consider any testimony with regard to an uncertified DBE that has been listed that may or may not be certified in the future, the law is very clear that it would be improper for the Board to consider anything of that which is contained in the bid response. Ms. Angelos asked Mr. Barelli, “with regard to O.C. Trucking, could you state for the Board specifically what work they responsible for and what is their role”. Mr. Barelli stated, “the work they are responsible for is the hauling of material in both the top soil item and in the barrow excavation area.” Ms. Angelos asked where in the base bid this information was contained. Mr. Barelli stated it was contained in a portion of 2 of the bid items in the bid and clarified the amount to this contractor from the total cost. Ms. Angelos questioned the reason why there are items not listed as work to be performed by the only DBE. Mr. Barelli stated, there was no reason. Mr. O’Neal commented on the good faith effort made by his client. Mr. Sanders, Sitewerks Inc., was sworn in by the Clerk/Secretary. Ms. Angelos proceeded to ask Mr. Sanders the following question, “ You heard Mr. Barelli indicate he had contacted you all as a prior DBA subcontractor, has Sitewerks Inc., ever been a DBA certified contractor. Mr. Sanders stated, “no”. Ms. Angles made closing remarks and stated Sitewerks failed to respond to the DBE because the question was ambiguous. They could not decipher what the language meant in the RFP and the County also read that to mean something different in when Sitewerks was awarded a bid with that same language. The County Attorney addressed the DBE requirements being legal or constitutional. He stated the cases he reviewed were primarily local government cases where local government imposes on it’s own DBE or NBE requirements and he believes those have been pretty fairly discredited and he believes Ms. Angelos was correct on those cases that have been overturned in court. This particular situation involves a Federal Grant and a Federal Program and Federal Regulations that are not mandatory they’re goals. He pointed out issues of constitutionality they are not in a position to deal with and believes they need to accept that these are the current regulations in place and they are a requirement by the funding agency that will fund 95% of this project and we are not in a 9 position to question them and it would have to be done in the Federal Court System. th Regarding the 5 questions, he would like the consultant to answer . Mr. Craig Sucich, Project Manager, did the design for the runway bid package Number 1, he is a registered P.E. in the State of Florida, stated, “ in regards to item number 5, this had to do with the schedule and while they do request in the proposed document that a schedule be provided, that was not considered a major irregularity not to have a schedule provided in the proposal documents, once a contract is awarded before the pre- construction meeting, as part of the contract signing with the awarded contract, a schedule will be required at that time. While they will be on a tight timeline for funding once the funding is in place, their contract time dictates the length of construction.” The County Attorney asked Mr. Sucich if he had an opinion as to whether or not Sitewerks bid was responsive. Mr. Sucich stated, they reviewed both of the proposal documents looking for irregularities based on the requirements, they did a tabulation bid, made sure all the line items added up correctly that the amounts proposed were correct, determined an apparent low bidder and went through the other documentations to see if they met the other requirements, specifically DBE good faith efforts and based on the lack of good faith efforts, they deemed Sitewerks non-responsive and at that time recommended the bid be awarded to Dickerson the next lowest bidder. The County Attorney asked Mr. Sucich if he had an opinion with regards to Dickerson proposal and if they made a good faith effort to achieve the goal and if he felt this had been achieved. Mr. Sucich stated they did not meet the goal however, the contractor that they used, the letters of intent for DBE participation represented a good faith effort. They also submitted a letter stating the contacts they made to achieve additional DBE participation those items together represented a good faith effort. The County Attorney asked based on what was presented if he would change his opinion or recommendation. Mr. Sucich stated, no. Com. Coward asked it be explained why Sitewerks was awarded a previous bid with the same language in the bid. Ms. Diana Lewis, Airport Director stated, “ in that particular situation, the Sitewerks bid went out prior to the Board approving the 2006 DBE plan in which their goal was set, however in anticipation that we were going to do that, our Consultants put in the DBE language and the Federal requirements for participation and other FAA requirements in that bid document, however, it was their understanding after speaking with the consultant Kimley Horn they did not look at the DBE participation when they made the recommendation and it was an error.” Ms. Heather Lueke, Asst. Couty Attorney advised the Board she had contacted the Department of Civil Rights representative, Mr. James Brame and she explained to him what the bid packages looked like and he stated they would not be able to award to Sitewerks because they had not made a good faith effort but they considered what Dickerson did as a good faith effort. Ms. Angleos asked what period of time does the contractor have to perform under this bid in order to ensure the Federal grant money. Ms. Lewis stated this grant is based on FAA discretionary funds and they must compete every year for these funds in order to proceed with their projects. They received the 6.5 million dollar grant from the FAA and this would only cover the first bid package for the clearing and grubbing work for the runway. The following year they would need to apply 10 again for additional FAA funds and would need to compete. So if they were not performing well it would be a poor reflection on their ability to use the grant properly. Ms. Angelos asked Ms. Lewis to confirm her comment relative to the fact that this particular RFP was issued after the Board had adopted the resolution which incorporated the DBE requirement of the Code of Federal Regulations. rd Ms. Lewis stated on May 23 the Board the approved a DBE plan that set out the programs that had been modified from a previous 2002 resolution that they had for the DBE program and this particular program had to be sent to the FAA for their approval. Ms. Angelos asked if they had specifically incorporated 49CFR Section 26.53. Ms. Lewis stated she could specifically state this had been incorporated. Ms. Angelos stated, it sounds as if contrary to what Mr. McIntyre thought this is the policy of the Board of County Commissioners and hence would be reviewed and the Board would have the burden of proof as it related to the scrutiny standards and secondly the Board’s resolution incorporated language which she previously read about the award of a contract only where a bidder or offer makes a good faith effort to utilize DBA subs. If that language would have been included in the bid package the public would have had knowledge of that requirement. The County Attorney stated he felt the bid it was not an option to award the bid to Sitewerks and stated he believes the Board needs to consider whether Dickerson is a responsive bidder, whether they made a good faith effort to comply with the DBE requirements which are Federal requirements not county requirements. Com. Coward questioned the statement made prior regarding Sitewerks being given a contract previously in error not meeting the DBE requirements. Ms. Lewis clarified her previous comments. She stated, the prior contract had similar language as to what exists now. However, that particular project was an FDOT project and they after the fact found out that the consultant had not looked at the DBE participation and they could have at the time went to the FDOT on whether they would have been disqualified or not however, that never occurred. It did have the same language as the current one. Ms. Angelso stated, that RFP had the same language except it required 10% more DBE participation than this RFP. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Smith, to approve staff recommendation and award the bid to Dickerson, At this time the motion make withdrew her first motion due to item 9B to be handles separately as Com. Smith also withdrew his second It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Smith to approve staff recommendation to uphold the Purchasing Director’s recommendation to rule Sitewerks Inc., non-responsive, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 9.B Award of Bid No. 06-084- Runway 9L27R- and Parallel Taxiway System- Consider staff recommendation to award Bid No. 06-084 to the second low bidder Dickerson, Florida for the completion of the base bid and alternates 1,2, and 4 resulting in a total award amount of $5,323,348.00 and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. It was moved by Com. raft, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call motion carried unanimously. 11 10.ADMINISTRATION Special Needs Shelter- Accept $1.8 million grant from the State of Florida, contract No. 07CP-5M-66-10-01 to help in the construction of a new Special Needs Shelter and authorize the Chairman to sign. It was moved by Com. Smith, seconded by Com. Craft, to approve the acceptance of the grant and authorized the Chairman to sign, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 11.ADMINISTRATION New Emergency Operations Center- Accept the $6.0 million grant from the State of Florida- Consider staff recommendation to accept the $6.0 million grant front he State of Florida to help in the construction of a new Emergency Operations Center and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 12.ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Sandscrub LLC- Conservation Easement, Phase II- Consider staff recommendation to disapprove the Sandscrub LLC Phase II Conservation Easement. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Smith to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 13.COUNTY ATTORNEY Oceanique Development Company - A status report was given on the project. Consider staff recommendation to issue a stop work order due to the conservation easement issue not being corrected as required. Mr. Craig Mundt, North Beach Homeowners Association, addressed the Board and asked if they were talking about the county acquiring the 17 acres. The Assistant County Attorney stated it was the portion that was supposed to be under the Conservation Easement with just under 17 ½ acres, it is this portion they were to donate to the County. The County would not be acquiring the developable part of the project which is 1 ½ acres on the west side of A-1-A to the east of the conservation easement as well as the property they have on the east side of A-1-A. Staff was directed to proceed with the related matter discussed regarding the remaining units and directed staff to also close the loop-hole regarding that issue. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 14.GROWTH MANGEMENT Petition of Aurelio an Maria Pereira for Major Site Plan approval of the project to be th known as Noble Oaks Estates for property located on the east side of 25 St., approximately 320 feet south of Midway Road- Draft Resolution No. 06-227 - Consider staff recommendation to approve Draft Resolution No. 06-227 to include the 10 limiting conditions. The Environmental Resources department gave a report on this project regarding open space requirements and the mitigation requirements. 12 Com. Coward commented on the tree survey and the large oaks at the end of the retention areas. He felt this could be modified in order to save those trees as an avoidance of minimization. He expressed his disappointment in the plan. Mr. Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido, addressed the Board’s questions and stated he concurred with staff recommendation and is convinced they have a good plan. Com. Coward pointed on lot 11 of the project and how that retention area could be moved further to the west. The huge oak trees could be saved by shifting the boundary to the west. Mr. Gregg Boggs stated they could do this on this site and he would agree to do so and will work with the environmental staff. Com. Coward stated he would like for this to be accomplished in the two areas he pointed out. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Smith to approve staff recommendation to include the additional condition regarding the trees as discussed, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 15.GROWTH MANAGEMENT Consider staff recommendation to approve the Petition of Dickerson Florida for a Major Site plan approval for the project to be known as Dickerson Florida, Inc., Phase II subject to the one limiting condition. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve staff recommendation, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. __________________________ Chairman ____________________________ Clerk of Circuit Court 13 14 15